United States District Court, D. Kansas
MARCO A. NUNEZ, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. LUNGSTRUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is a pro se petition for habeas corpus filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. The Court has screened the Petition (Doc.
1) under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases,
foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and dismisses the Petition as
February 2007, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). See United
States v. Nunez-Ramos, No. 06-20141-JWL (D. Kan.). In
June 2008, Petitioner was sentenced to a 235-month term of
imprisonment. In March 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to
vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. Id. at Doc. 56. Petitioner's §
2255 motion was denied in part and dismissed in part on
September 30, 2009. Id. at Doc. 73.
brings the instant Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
alleging that he is being unlawfully imprisoned because
“the FINE imposed under Document 17, paragraph #10,
Claim #2:06-CR-20141-JWL, has been Fully Satisfied . . .
.” (Doc. 1, at 2.) Petitioner cites to
multiple federal and state statutes, codes and regulations.
Petitioner attaches documents, presumably self-prepared,
including: a 2018 Form 1096 reporting $150, 000, 000 and
signed by Petitioner as Trustee; various 2018 Form 1099-As
showing outstanding principal balances of $50, 000, 000 and
listing Petitioner as the Lender and the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas as borrower; a
power of attorney purporting to name himself, as agent, as
“power of attorney in fact” for himself, as
secured party; an Express Trust; and a UCC Financing
Statement naming Petitioner as the secured party and the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas as
federal prisoner seeking release from allegedly illegal
confinement may file a motion to “vacate, set aside or
correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A
motion under § 2255 must be filed in the district where
the petitioner was convicted and sentence imposed. Sines
v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070, 1073 (10th Cir. 2010). When a
petitioner is denied relief on his first motion under §
2255, he cannot file a second § 2255 motion unless he
can point to either “newly discovered evidence”
or “a new rule of constitutional law, ” as those
terms are defined in § 2255(h). Haskell v.
Daniels, 510 Fed.Appx. 742, 744 (10th Cir. 2013)
(unpublished) (citing Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d
578, 581 (10th Cir. 2011)).
brings his petition under § 2241 and claims he is not
bringing a § 2255 motion. (Doc. 1, at 4.) (“Be
informed, this is NOT a 2255 Motion”). “Whenever
a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his
present physical custody within the United States, he should
name his warden as respondent and file the petition in
the district of confinement.” Al-Pine v.
Richerson, No. 18-2142, 2019 WL 610597, at *2 (10th Cir.
Feb. 13, 2019) (unpublished) (quoting Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004) (emphasis added)).
“Jurisdiction over § 2241 petitions ‘lies in
only one district: the district of confinement.'”
Id. (citing Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at
is currently, and was at the time of filing, confined at
FCI-Victorville in Victorville, California. When a petition
is brought in the wrong district, the court should take a
“quick look at the merits” before deciding
whether to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 or
dismiss the petition outright.” Id. at *3
(quoting Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1150-51
(10th Cir. 2000)). Although Petitioner's claims are
largely incomprehensible, the Court's “quick look
at the merits” shows that Petitioner's claims are
legally frivolous. See Crawford v. United States,
No. 09-3078-RDR, 2009 WL 1657546, at *1 (D. Kan. June 12,
2009) (summarily dismissing petition and finding that
“Plaintiff's attempt to effect his release . . .
through operation of civil commercial statutes and self
styled bonds is legally frivolous”); see also
Marrero v. Warden, No. 5:17-HC-2020-BO, 2017 WL 4112282,
at *1 (E.D. N.C. May 23, 2017) (finding that “a
criminal judgment is not a financial document the terms of
which may be negotiated by commercial codes or contractual
principles, ” and noting that arguments based on
similar theories have been rejected by courts as being
frivolous and a waste of judicial resources) (citing
McCullough v. United States, No. 3:11CV176, 2011 WL
3652332, at *2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2011)).
Court should consider the consequences of transfer “to
avoid raising false hopes and wasting judicial resources that
would result from transferring a case which is clearly
doomed.” Haugh, 210 F.3d at 1150. The Court
finds that transfer is not warranted and dismisses the
Petition as legally frivolous.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the petition
IS SO ORDERED.